Attorney General and Prime Minister may be at odds over 90 day detention plan

4.00.00pm UTC (GMT +0000) Fri 4th Nov 2005

Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Mark Oaten MP, has today written to the Home Secretary asking for the Attorney General's view on the legality of the Terrorism Bill to be published. The move follows Charles Clarke's statement to the House on Thursday night in which he revealed that the Attorney General had not provided the legal basis for declaring the Bill compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

In the letter Mr Oaten challenges the Home Secretary to confirm whether or not the proposal to detain terror suspects for up to 90 days has the backing of the Attorney General, and whether the measure on which the Prime Minster now appears intent on staking his authority is in fact in breach of human rights law.

Mr Oaten writes:

"On Thursday evening you informed the House that the legal advice you have received as to the compatibility of the Terrorism Bill with the European Convention on Human Rights did not come from the Attorney General. On Wednesday evening you told the House that the Attorney General had provided legal advice and that he was of the opinion that the provisions were compatible with the UK's human rights obligations.

"I would like to remind you that the Law Society considers it "very unlikely" that clause 23 is compatible with article 5 of ECHR, and that JUSTICE believes any extension beyond the current 14 days would be in breach. In addition, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Alex Carlille QC, stated in his report on the draft legislation:

"I question whether what is proposed in the Bill would be proof to challenge under the Human Rights Act given the length of extended detention envisaged."

"Last month the Attorney General's spokesman was reported as saying, 'He believes the case is there for longer than 14 days but is not convinced he has seen a case for 90 days.' In the light of your statement yesterday, it would appear that the Attorney General continues to hold that view. This raises the question of whether the provisions of the Bill are lawful in the eyes of the government's chief legal adviser.

"I hope you agree that Parliament cannot possibly give its agreement to this proposal if the Attorney General has doubts about its legality. Given the Prime Minister's statements yesterday that he intends to press ahead with the extension to 90 days, it is now imperative the views of the Attorney General on this matter are made known."